A Question to Wignats

[Hellbound Hellhound]

If white women have been the primary beneficiaries, who have been the primary victims of affirmative action? Who's oppertunities were taken and given to white women?

That's an ill-considered question, because opportunities aren't a zero-sum game. The rationale behind affirmation action (whether you think it's a good thing or not) is that it provides opportunities to people who are otherwise generally denied them, with the ultimate goal of normalizing the provision of those opportunities to the groups it's set up to help.

Put simply: the intent behind it is to help to erode stigmas around certain groups which reduce their participation in society, and there is absolutely no evidence that this has made any group worse off on aggregate. Women entering the workforce (and the subsequent erosion of the stigma surrounding women having careers), didn't make men (least not white men) poorer as a demographic.

My question was "how violent were dhimmies?"

I don't think you think I was suggesting that the Chinese are going very easy on the uyghurs either. Your comment that it's possible that it doesn't necessarily lead to violence (but results instead in a situation where one group dominates another completely with all of the moral problems that creates), is what I wanted to highlight. I'm glad you've given that ground.

Then why bring it up like it's a point worth making? If the creation of a totalitarian state with the power to dispose of any group it doesn't like is necessary for racial segregation to be achieved with minimal resistance, then all you're really doing is moving the problem, because the implementation of such a state in a formally democratic society would almost certainly necessitate violence in one form or another.

Two questions remain that I'd like to ask you. First why do you consider seperatist movements inherently violent? If people wish to govern themselves, isn't it inherently violent to prevent that rather than allow them? And if that isn't violence isn't, then how is that different from either dhimmies or uyghurs or chaz or slavery, where a group is completely dominated as to not be given that level of self-determination?

You're asking me to explain why a willingness to peacefully coexist is the antithesis of violence? I've already explained why I reject the equivocation these questions are based upon.

If minimization of violence is a goal, have you taken into account the larger number of violence that happens in multicultural societies compared to monocultural ones? Can we weigh that off against the violence produced by the segregating act?

How about we consider the stronger possibility that this violence is the result of a lack of cultural integration rather than too much of it? Because all of the evidence we have suggests that the more culturally integrated two groups are with one another, the less violence exists between them.

Given the historical record alone, I absolutely would argue that forcefully segregating people is more violent than working to bring them together.

Why would people who moved to the US for economic reasons get violent when alternatively they could be financially incentivised to just move again?

They’re not fighting for a homeland, why would they risk bloodshed. I don’t think your hypothesis stands up to the smell test.

The majority of racial minorities in the United States aren't immigrants, and even if you could successfully incentivize the ones who are to leave, you'd still risk alienating their naturalized relatives. Who says these people wouldn't be fighting for a homeland, anyway? If they were born and raised in the United States, the United States is their home, and you're arguing for a belligerent attempt to remove them from it. A violent reaction, under those circumstances, is entirely understandable.

 

[Sicklick]

Imagine not being an unironic Neo-Nazi in 2020. Jesus you people are so pathetic. Name me one thing these black power retards protesting have ever done or contributed to society. Just fucking one. Exactly, nothing. If it wasn't for whites they would still be living in dunghuts right now. Scientific racism and eugenics FTW.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

Imagine not being an unironic Neo-Nazi in 2020. Jesus you people are so pathetic. Name me one thing these black power retards protesting have ever done or contributed to society. Just fucking one. Exactly, nothing. If it wasn't for whites they would still be living in dunghuts right now. Scientific racism and eugenics FTW.

yeah but Hitler had history's gayest mustache

 

[Lemmingwise]

That's an ill-considered question, because opportunities aren't a zero-sum game.

Of course they are. One may posit equality of oppertunity as a moral virtue, even if it like every ideal is impossible to 100% achieve.

If the US laxed its rules on where presidential candidates must be born to expand to any birthcountry, then the opportunity giving to foreign born comes at the expense of homeborn canditates. The first time a foreignborn president would emerge, then the person who would have otherwise won is the person it comes at the expense of.

You could make a good argument why this would be moral, sensible or pick your own positive sounding value judgement, but it doesn't change the fact that expanding opportunities to one group comes at the expense of another.

Though this is a very generous interpretation on my part, since in practice there are numerous examples where it is not at all about equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome across the west, with quota's and other things. I know such quota's are illegal in the US in education, though I did see some court cases alledging that it was secretly happening. I don't know if it did or not, I never looked at it closely.

----

Finally your claim that women entering the work force not making men poorer is laughable. The fact that you say it may have made non-white men poorer but not white men is particularly indicative of your prejudices.

You're asking me to explain why a willingness to peacefully coexist is the antithesis of violence? I've already explained why I reject the equivocation these questions are based upon.

I asked why you consider a segregationist movement inherently violent. Why don't any group of people have the right to self-segregate? They're being prevented by force, by violence of doing so. That too would be a method of peaceful coexistence.

Because all of the evidence we have suggests that the more culturally integrated two groups are with one another, the less violence exists between them.

Violence increases, lonelyness increases, trust decreases the more groups are mixed and all the evidence points in that direction. I'm not sure what evidence you're speaking of.

Given the historical record alone, I absolutely would argue that forcefully segregating people is more violent than working to bring them together.

How about not forcefully prohibiting self-segregation? Again, if minimization of violence is your goal, shouldn't we prevent this violence too?

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Of course they are. One may posit equality of oppertunity as a moral virtue, even if it like every ideal is impossible to 100% achieve.

If the US laxed its rules on where presidential candidates must be born to expand to any birthcountry, then the opportunity giving to foreign born comes at the expense of homeborn canditates. The first time a foreignborn president would emerge, then the person who would have otherwise won is the person it comes at the expense of.

You could make a good argument why this would be moral, sensible or pick your own positive sounding value judgement, but it doesn't change the fact that expanding opportunities to one group comes at the expense of another.

Presidential candidates is a silly example, because by law, there can only ever be one president at a time. This logic doesn't hold true for opportunities more generally, and it would be a weak argument to make regardless. If, hypothetically, a foreign-born candidate was more qualified to run the country than all of the native-born ones, why shouldn't they get the job?

My argument still holds that opportunities aren't a zero-sum game, and you will find no evidence that white men have been made poorer by the expansion of opportunities to other groups. An individual white man might lose out on an individual job opportunity thanks to affirmative action, but he benefits by being a part of a more dynamic economy which doesn't squander the talent of it's non-white and female members. There is such a thing as a mutually beneficial relationship in economics, and it's what the data supports.

Finally your claim that women entering the work force not making men poorer is laughable. The fact that you say it may have made non-white men poorer but not white men is particularly indicative of your prejudices.

I don't believe that women entering the workforce has made non-white men poorer, and it's not what the evidence suggests, although I will concede that I could have worded that sentence more clearly. Perhaps I should have said "least of all" instead of "least not"?

I asked why you consider a segregationist movement inherently violent. Why don't any group of people have the right to self-segregate? They're being prevented by force, by violence of doing so. That too would be a method of peaceful coexistence.

You're still making the same equivocation. The fundamental difference between segregation and coexistence is that the former requires the threat of violence to be directed against certain groups in order to be maintained, whereas the latter is open to everyone. The only time violence results from peaceful coexistence is when belligerent actors don't want to play fair like everyone else, and it's these belligerent actors you're asking me to sympathize with.

Why should I sympathize with them? Why should I grant them any concession when they are clearly the problem?

Violence increases, lonelyness increases, trust decreases the more groups are mixed and all the evidence points in that direction. I'm not sure what evidence you're speaking of.

You're confusing cultural integration with geographic integration. If you put two groups who are culturally distinct and don't get along in close proximity to one another, then you will see all of the effects you're talking about, but as they become more culturally integrated, these effects disappear. The data on this is pretty clear: the more positive contact you have with a particular demographic, the less animosity you will feel towards that demographic on average.

How about not forcefully prohibiting self-segregation? Again, if minimization of violence is your goal, shouldn't we prevent this violence too?

You can self-segregate in the privacy of your own home. The rest of us are under no obligation to facilitate segregation on a societal level, and it is ridiculous to suggest that doing so is non-violent for the reasons I've given. Groups and ideologies which reject the foundations of civil society are owed no conciliation.

 

[Lemmingwise]

An individual white man might lose out on an individual job opportunity thanks to affirmative action, but he benefits by being a part of a more dynamic economy which doesn't squander the talent of it's non-white and female members.

Your post is riddled with disingenous answers, but this one takes the crown. What benefit!

 

[The giant penis of doom]

Imagine not being an unironic Neo-Nazi in 2020. Jesus you people are so pathetic. Name me one thing these black power retards protesting have ever done or contributed to society. Just fucking one. Exactly, nothing. If it wasn't for whites they would still be living in dunghuts right now. Scientific racism and eugenics FTW.

Nazis had the wrong idea about race. Race realism is most definitely not in line with their ideology.
Eugenics is good, but for ethical reasons we shouldn't force the short term solutions (as in, no killing of subhumans), we have to find more subtle solutions to phase them out.

It's also bad for optics.

 

[Johan Schmidt]

Nazis had the wrong idea about race. Race realism is most definitely not in line with their ideology.
Eugenics is good, but for ethical reasons we shouldn't force the short term solutions (as in, no killing of subhumans), we have to find more subtle solutions to phase them out.

It's also bad for optics.

Galton unironically already laid out the foundation work for eugenics. It just seems that the people who read his work and followed on from him didn't bother reading the part where he wrote it plain: People want what is best for their children. You don't need to shoot subhumans, you just need to convince people that marrying and having kids with them is a bad fucking idea. Parents want their kids in clubs, and youth groups and things that will 'enrich them' as people. Simply bring that back on a state level, and use them as a mechanism for matchmaking by extending them into secondary and higher education. Shame people who marry outside of their race, and shame people who marry and reproduce with spiteful mutants, genetic abnormalities and other such undesirables.

The issue we have is not creating a eugenic system, people do that already by selecting for others like them, with traits that they find appealing. The issue is repairing the family and society from the continuous Roblox death sound it's been doing since the 1940's. In that regard the Nazi's had the right idea; they didn't just want worker units. They tried to instill a sense of culture and refinement even in the lower classes; they encouraged fitness, outdoor play for children even in the cities, meeting other towns and places in Germany to get a fullness of the heritage of their nation. You can take that from the Nazi's.

The issue that arises is that Eugenics is a project of a successful healthy state, and a natural one. You cannot truly engage in a eugenics policy without first having the base of peoples who would go along with such a thing.